The WTO panel, on the China-Raw Materials Case, made sev-eral mistakes in the interpretation of paragraph 11. 3 of China’s WTO Accession Protocol and Paragraph 170 of China’s Accession Working Party Report, such as the avoidance of interpreting key words, failure to state reasons and dislocation of cause and effect. The WTO appel ate body report acted in a different way after declared that the customary rules of interpretation of public international law, as codified in Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties are, pursuant to Article 3. 2 of the DSU, applicable. Even based on the applica-tion of the single interpretative element of “text”, the interpretation of appel ate body is partial toward the phrase of“under exceptional circumstances”, and is in-consistent with al the three sentences in Note to Annex 6 . China needs to take correspondence measures to this unfavorable interpretation.%WTO“中国原材料案”专家组对《中国入世议定书》第11.3条与《中国加入工作组报告》第170条的解释，存在着故意回避对关键用语的解释、不陈述理由以及“因果错位”等问题。上诉机构最初宣称将“根据DSU第3.2条适用包括《维也纳条约法公约》第31、32条中解释规则在内的各项习惯法解释因素”，但最终所选择的解释方法却大相径庭。即便是适用“文本”这个单一的解释因素，上诉机构对该第11.3条附件6中“例外情况”的解读也仍然有失偏颇，并没有得到附件6中全部三个句子的文本支持。中国应该根据不利解释结论形成的原因，采取相应的应对之策。
展开▼
